Leadership

I often hear leaders like myself saying things like “what we really need is someone to help us with ____, so we need to go hire someone who does ____.” While hiring an expert is often a good idea, and can even reap tremendous gains for the organization, “more overhead” is often used as an excuse for why the organization cannot address what they need help with.  It can even lead to the organizational mindset of being stuck – “we can’t move forward unless we get our costs in-line so that we can afford person x, otherwise we are stuck.”

There are two problems with this mindset.

First, it fails to uncover hidden talent on the team.  Turned into a question, what skills do some of our team members possess that can be leveraged for the overall benefit of the team?  For example, does a sales person excel in developing new accounts?  If so, shouldn’t I, the leader, help them manage their schedule so that they spend the majority of their time doing this, rather than spending time in day-to-day account management?  While this may sound obvious, what I have found is that leaders are often pressured to bow to what I refer to as traditional role stereotypes.  For example, the idea that the sales person should handle all aspects of their accounts, thus they may have to sacrifice some of their time building new relationships to manage their accounts effectively.  But it doesn’t end there either.  Because the sales person does this, the rest organization stays in its lane – the rest of the sales team acts the same, rather than leveraging each of its individual strengths, and the supporting services (like customer service) stay in their lane doing the “traditional” functions of their roles.  For some individual team-members, this might be the appropriate path forward.  But, and this is a big but, what if there are unhidden talents, like a customer service team-member with an acumen and desire to sell, that go unseen because they are told to stay in their lanes?

Does this mean they have to wait until the next job opening comes up?

This leads to the second problem with the stuck mindset.  Not only does it fail to uncover hidden talent on the team, it also fails to provide the opportunity for that talent to be leveraged.  “More” does not automatically mean “better.”  For example, in the case above, I could hypothetically add another sales person to the roster so that the organization reaches more customers.  But doing so would come at a cost to the organization.  Besides the fixed costs of adding overhead, it would cost others the opportunity to step up and develop their skills.  Conversely, if I challenged the sales person to give up some of the day-to-day account management, the best two options would be to hire another account manager, or find someone else on the team who could contribute.  Embracing the latter not only uncovers the hidden talent on the team, but provides the opportunity to bring it out.  Moreover, it also helps the organization become leaner instead of relying on the traditional ways “we have always done things.”

Ultimately, it is up to the leader to recognize when the organization would be better served by adding the expert.  The point is that is only one path forward.

The organization will need to think differently about how it is already doing things, and how it does things in the future.  Like Major League Baseball Teams embracing more “hybrid” roles (players who can play multiple positions), so too will we have to figure out how to manage escalating costs (healthcare, etc.) by leveraging team members that can do more than one thing.  I believe this will not only make us better, it will also offer more opportunity for our team members to develop and cultivate their own skills.

And seeing people grow may be the best part of leadership.

Last month our sales team had its annual two-day strategic planning event.  The team talked about its strategic goals for not only the next year, but also about where we wanted to head over the long-term.

I love how engaged our team members are.  They’re smart, motivated, passionate, and not only willing to challenge each other, they’re also willing to challenge me. In fact, one of my favorite moments of the two days was when one of our team members openly challenged my views.

The issue had to do with a pricing expectation.  The sales person stated that they disagreed with my expectation. In fact, they thought it was off-base and could lead to us losing out on business.  Rather than leave it at that, I challenged them back.  What would their expectation be if this was their company? (And it is their company because it is OUR company!)  They stated that while they saw where I was coming from, they felt a lower figure would be more apt so long as we were guaranteed the business for a certain number of years.

My response?

I’d take that deal today!

The point of this post isn’t about who is right.  In fact, I am being vague with some of the details above because they don’t matter and they’re private!  The point is that as leaders, we need to be open to being challenged. We can actually benefit greatly by it!

Being challenged matters because no single person has all the answers, or all the information.  In the scenario above, the salesperson actually made some compelling points and offered a perspective that helped improve upon my original assumption.  So, by listening to them, my view improved.

Furthermore, by listening to them I demonstrated that as a team, we listen to each other!  Remember, the entire team was present when I was challenged.  So, if I, the leader, failed to listen, then why should anyone else on the team?  We have to remember that both positive and negative behaviors are mirrored by those we lead.

Finally, the experience demonstrated that we can disagree without having any repercussions. Our culture today sees a disagreement as a personal attack. This is not the way it should be, and we need to make sure we create an environment in our workplaces where this is not the case. I did not hold a grudge towards this individual, nor did they toward me.  How do I know?  Because I intentionally sought them out at our first break and affirmed them, then revisited the conversation later in the day by telling them what I learned from it, and by texting them and another team member that evening to tell them both about my favorite two moments from the day’s events (with this one making the cut!).  All that might sound like a lot, but as the leader, it is my job to ensure that we are “all good” and that we do not silence dissenting opinions. (We aren’t right ALL the time!)

Ineffective “leaders” often crave self-esteem boosts coming from ineffective, and often uninspired team members, who long ago gave up on challenging the status quo.  The more effective path is the one where the leader surrounds themselves with people who will sometimes disagree, and often challenge.  As my experience above reminds me, everyone gets better when this happens.

Especially the leader.

A few years ago, I purchased a brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee. I have absolutely loved driving the car ever since. In fact, the car has exceeded my expectations in terms of reliability and performance.

That said, I doubt I’ll buy another one.

How come?

The customer service at the local Jeep dealer is abysmal.

I was reminded of this recently when I sat for 3.5 hours waiting for two recalls to be fixed. I think Sarah delivered our third child in less time than it took this dealership to fix two recalls! The time sitting there was one thing, the T.V. —and noise accompanying it—was so loud I could hardly think. Worse, the programming was so depressing that it is no wonder Americans are mad at just about everything anymore. Why a dealership would want to encourage such negative animosity while customers are waiting hours for fixes to their high-priced vehicles is beyond me (I’d play something soothing in attempts to keep everyone chill to distract them from the ridiculous wait times!).

My first-world problems aside, what bothered me the most was the lack of communication. As much as I asked for clarity about when the car might be done, none was given: “I don’t know, man, it depends on how long the software takes to download.”

Really?

As my judgmental thoughts continued to fester, I asked myself a sobering question in an attempt to snap out my own negativity: What kind of after-sales experience do our customers have?

Is the information that we share clear?

If there is a delay, is it clear why?

Is it clear when the parts will be delivered?

How often are we in touch with customers after they place the P.O.?

As I sat there—and as I tried to tune out the latest celebrity nonsense that was blaring on the T.V.—I reminded myself of two important realities:

First, much of the customer’s experience happens POST sale. These experiences, as I am learning with my beloved car dealer, can shape the customer’s opinions about the brand.

Second, while I cannot control what the Jeep dealer does, I can influence what we do at Hoffer Plastics. More specifically, I can re-emphasize with our team how vital post-sale customer interaction is.

Creating clarity might not solve every issue, but it is a great starting point! Customers want to know all the answers to the questions they will be asked by their teams, and they want to know with complete certainty that those answers are trustworthy.

Then, it is up to us to deliver and prove our trustworthiness.

It is not rocket science.

Had I been told that the recall would take 3.5 hours up front, I would have probably been annoyed, maybe even upset.

But, my trust would have grown when the car was done on time.

Instead, I remain annoyed a few days later.

Worse, I continue to dream about a sports car (much to my wife’s delight!).

The after-sales experience matters immensely.

Writing to believers in the early Church, James wrote these words in the opening chapter of his letter: “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry” (James 1:19).

I have been pondering these words a lot lately. Many of the leadership books I have read the last few years have had similar pieces of advice in them. Let me be honest, being quick to listen is hard for me. It is hard because I am full of my own opinions and ideas. Therefore, everything in me wants to listen, but I struggle immensely with being fast to speak.  When this is the case, am I really listening? I’m not when I am formulating what I am going to say next.

Can you relate?

While James is speaking to a wide audience, this directive carries significant weight for leaders. Because when the leader talks, people get quiet. Furthermore, when the conversation grows tense, the leader’s words can carry even more weight than they normally do. The leader can even stifle idea creation, teamwork, and discussion, just by speaking at the wrong time.

And what about anger? Angry outbursts are obviously detrimental, but sometimes if we fail to control our anger toward others, it sneaks out in more passive-aggressive ways. James, the writer of the letter, goes on to advise his readers about the tongue a few chapters later. Isn’t it ironic, he says, that supposed Christians offer praise to God and then speak evil of their brothers (James 3:9)? As humans, this struggle continues 2,000 years later —and sadly, Christians are not exempt.

I am not exempt.

As a leader, have I said all the right things publicly about our team and then spoken evil about individuals behind their backs? Have I not demonstrated real love by setting up time to speak directly with them, rather than talking to a third party about them?

I wish I could say that I am past that kind of juvenile behavior. At times, however, I am not.

This is my confession. I am owning it, and working on it.

Back once more to the verse at the opening: How secure do you feel in meetings? In other words, do you feel confident enough that you can be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry?

Or, do you feel threatened when a co-worker disagrees with you?

Do you feel confident enough of your own standing to allow others to share their input, and possibly get the credit?

Or, do you have to always be right and in the spotlight?

These are questions everyone reading this post should consider and reflect upon.

I am.

In closing, I challenge leaders like myself to take an additional step and model this kind of behavior. Trust me, it is hard. It is hard to let others speak, it is hard to stay calm in the midst of a tense situation.

But everyone is watching. Our actions will demonstrate what kind of behavior is acceptable within our organizations.

Let’s choose wisely.

I recently was reading a Harvard Business Review article about “supporting a decision you don’t agree with.” The article was helpful, and offered the reader wise counsel in advocating that workers should not undermine their boss’ decision. They’re both on the same team after all!

But, this got me wondering: What about when the boss is wrong? Bosses are human after all, and all humans are prone to making mistakes. So what happens when the boss is entirely wrong, and you the worker can see it, yet the boss wants to move forward anyway? To be sure, this goes beyond “supporting a decision you don’t agree with.” I am referring to big initiatives, where the very survival of the organization may hang in the balance. What do you do then?

For starters, respectfully challenge the decision. If anyone I lead is reading this, I want noise, albeit in a respectful tone! “Your idea sucks,” is harsh, but it may be necessary. It would be better to say something like “here is where your idea may run into trouble” —and then name the potential obstacles. The point is that you need to speak up! And not just once. The leader had better fully understand your point of view, its merits, and your concerns around the direction they—the leader— intend to go. The most unhelpful thing you can do for your organization is be quiet in the moment, and play “armchair quarterback” later. Know-it-alls in hindsight are not helpful whatsoever.

Speak up in the moment!

But what if the boss still does not listen? Dan Coyle shares an example of this in The Culture Code (yes, this book again!). The story is of Dave Cooper, and his now famous “Seal Team 6’s” capture of Osama Bin Laden. You’ll have to read the story yourself in the book. The short version, goes like this: The higher ups ordered Cooper to use a new kind of stealth helicopter for the mission to capture Bin Laden. The problem? The chopper had never been used in combat! Cooper challenged authority, but command was insistent. Instead of blindly obeying the order, or denying the order, Cooper did something altogether different by preparing his men for every conceivable thing that could go wrong with the helicopter. In fact, as Coyle shares, they practiced “downed helicopter drills” so many times that his men started sarcastically joking about running even more drills. The result is amazing. (Go buy the book!)

What do you do the next time something similar happens in your organization? For example, the boss is insistent on using a certain supplier that you suspect will fail. You respectfully voice your concern to no avail. Do you sit back and watch, or like Cooper, or do you help the team do “drills” in anticipation of the challenge to come?

Leaders always take ownership of the problem!

Leaders are always out to help others succeed, no matter the cost to their own ego!

This leads us to one final reminder before closing: Respectfully voicing your opinion and planning for contingencies are positive behaviors of any culture. Sitting around and gossiping about how stupid management is —regardless of how true that sentiment may be —is not. As Dr. Henry Cloud has said before, “I do not understand people who pee in their cereal and gripe because it tastes bad!”

Bosses are often wrong. Challenge them respectfully. Create contingency plans that will serve the organization.

Just don’t pee in everyone’s cereal.

I have been devouring Daniel Coyle’s The Culture Code lately.  Providing simple actionable advice on creating a positive and effective culture, it is quickly becoming one of the best books I have read so far this year.

A chapter that grabbed my attention early in the book is entitled “How to Build Belonging.” In it, Coyle examines long-time San Antonio Spurs’ Head basketball coach, Gregg Popovich. “Pop,” as he is known by NBA fans, has had one of the most successful tenures as a head coach in NBA history. His teams have always stood out to the common observer because they have exhibited unselfishness not common in the modern NBA. Their winning record and 5 NBA titles placed them consistently in the “who is the best team in the NBA” conversation.

Success on the court is one thing, but what has always stood out about Pop to me is how much his players, and even players on other teams, adore him. How does he connect with so many people? Coyle points to three intentional practices Coach Popovich practices (this chapter alone is worth the price of the book, and by no means am I doing it justice below):

Pop practices connectivity. Coyle details how Pop invades personal space, touches players’ elbows or gives them a pat on the back, and specifically attends to players who might have struggled in the previous game. This is all intentional. What challenged me was how simple this is. It is something any leader can do.Pop then critiques. Pop is known for not sugar coating any message to his players or other coaches. We have all read countless biographies of leaders willing to “tell it like it is,” but what makes Pop different is when and how the criticism is delivered. It always comes after a connection has been formed—as in step 1 above. This is more effective than the “feedback sandwich” approach where managers handout criticism “sandwiched” between two positive attributes. This tends to make the positives feel less authentic. Compare this to Pop” who has been known to absolutely berate his players, including the superstars like Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, during practices. The players’ openness to such criticism seems to indicate a unique connection to Pop. For if they were not connected, would they be open to such criticism? One probably suspects not. Moreover, “Pop” seems to understand the need for the players to accept coaching, because as Coyle writes in the chapter, he thanks “each player for allowing him to coach them” at every season’s end. Talk about an example to follow in our own leadership!Pop teaches perspective to the team. I have heard stories, and Coyle details a few in the chapter, about how Pop uses game-film study sessions to show his team documentaries about history, politics, and other topics of importance. In fact, Pop encourages discussion about these matters within the team. This perspective not only reminds players that there are bigger issues in the world than the game of basketball, but it also reinforces how connected they are as a team (we can talk about anything and everything here). So when the Spurs lose a big game, and they have had some gut-wrenching defeats during Pop’s tenure, they’re able to maintain perspective and process the loss, and emotions that come with the loss, together.

What does all this mean for us? For starters, it reminds us that connecting with those we lead is not only vital, but often simpler than we assume. It just takes intentionality and focus. As Coyle reminds the reader, Pop does not engage much with technology, and did not carry an iPhone until 2018 (he has yet to send a single text message per Coyle).

No wonder he has the time for this kind of intentionality.

Here are some ideas to increase connectivity with your team this summer:

—Schedule a team dinner this summer.

—Tell your team “thank you” today (be specific for why you are thanking them however).

—Read and discuss a history book with your team.

—Consider ways of connecting physically with your team (Know your audience here, and obviously avoid anything that could be creepy or misinterpreted. A hand shake, fist bump, or a pat on the back when appropriate are proven to be extremely powerful!).

The list could go on and on. The point is this: To build a great culture, you have to be intentional about connecting with, and valuing, others.

I was recently reminded reading the Harvard Business Review that most organizations rely on workers to fulfill the specific job description associated with the title of the position they are being hired for, rather than allowing them, the worker, to create a role more suited to their skills set. Given the challenges all manufactures —us included —face to cut costs, optimize processes, and become more efficient, this got me thinking: should workers be tied to a job description? Should we persist in the standard model, largely based on hierarchy, that can restrict workers from engaging in activities outside their standard job role/title?

I pose this question because it is an aspect of organizational life that I have been thinking about since my role morphed to include operations, in addition to both sales and engineering. Frankly, I have found it easy to give our sales and engineering teams complete autonomy. That said, they all have “traditional titles” on their business cards, and while their deliverables are mutually-constructed, it is safe to say that they’re pretty standard in the industry. Most do, however, play hybrid roles, meaning they contribute more than their traditional title would suggest. Some have customer service backgrounds, and provide value that is addition of our standard customer service team (one recently drove parts to a customer on a Saturday morning, for instance).  A few others are more technical, and can provide tooling knowledge that goes beyond the scope of their “Business Development” title. And perhaps the most impressive example is our proprietary product team, which can offer unique knowledge on filling technology in the flexible packaging market, and is supported by our automation team that can completely change over an existing horizontal, form, fill, and seal, and pre-spouted pouch machines to accommodate our parts.

I fear the above sounds like a brag, so here is where we are not as “advanced”: the manufacturing floor. While certain groups in our company are empowered to use their gifts, especially when those gifts are outside the scope of their job title, our manufacturing floor still feels very “traditional” as I suspect it did two decades ago. Hourly workers, in particular, have a lot more structure around the tasks they are supposed to perform on a daily basis. And like all of us, they have challenges they have to deal with on a daily and weekly basis. For example, I have been told frequently that given our current environment at Hoffer Plastics, they feel continually challenged around the level of business (i.e. busyness on the floor): Foremen struggle to find weekend coverage in all our plants, and I sense burnout on the rise as weekend work has not slowed down so far in 2018 (of course I fear it will). Therefore, engagement is a big deal to leaders like me. I value our hourly workers because the work they do is, in a lot of ways, what we all get paid for by our customers. So as a leader, it is my job to uncover ways to increase their engagement, and frankly, happiness.

So this brings me full circle to the question at hand: would more autonomy increase worker engagement? How would it work, given the non-negotiable aspects of manufacturing (like quality standards, production demands, etc.)? How can I train our plant managers to embrace this kind of thinking?

These are thoughts on my mind at the gym right now (where I do my best thinking!).

I don’t have the answer to these questions today, which is one of the reasons I am writing this post. I hope to start a conversation with you, the reader. What ideas do you have for improving employee morale and engagement? What ideas do you have for shaking up traditional hierarchies on manufacturing floors?

To be clear, we do uncover hidden talents on the floor, and we do promote from within. For example, our plant managers have all come from within over the decade I have been here, and that has had ripple effects in terms of internal promotions. I have been pleasantly surprised when hidden gems have stepped up in their new roles. But it still bothers me that we are most likely still missing hidden potential. (I’m sure I will hear about “hidden talents” from people on our floor after posting this, which is one of the reasons I am writing it in the first place!).

I’ll close by repeating some of my core beliefs: Every job matters, and every human being here matters. As leaders, we have to use our leadership gifts (whatever they are) to help marry people’s skills, passions, and unique abilities to meeting our customers’ needs. After all, the mission remains to manufacture plastic parts that increase our customers’ productivity and profitability. They remain the hero!

I could not finish without reminding the reader of that.